Copyright, Disclaimer & Terms of Use

This blog does not operate for commercial purpose, but focuses on referee education and information only.

If you feel that any content is belonging to you exclusively or is misplaced, please contact us immediately so that we can remove it!

This also counts for comments which restrict you in your dignity and liberty, which are abusive or insultive. Sometimes such types of comments are not directly seen by this blog's administrators. In order to make them be removed as soon as possible, you can contact us via mail (see above).

June 15, 2017

Confed Cup 2017: Referee Appointments for Matchday 1

Colombia's Wilmar Roldán has been chosen to referee the opening game of 2017 Confederations Cup between hosts Russia and New Zealand. He will be assisted by Alexander Guzmán and Cristian de la Cruz - both also from Colombia - and Fourth Official Mark Geiger from the United States. The referee team will be supported by a trio of Video Assistant Referees (VARs) consisting of Brazil's Sandro Ricci, Canadian Joe Fletcher and Paraguay's Enrique Cacéres.

Roldán, who was ranked at the 2nd place in our annual referee ranking back in 2012, has already officiated at World Cup 2014. After his performance in the tournament's second match - Mexico vs Cameroon - significantly suffered from two offside blunders of his assistant referee Humberto Clavijo, the young Colombian was sent home following his second game between Algeria and Korea Republic.

I hope they test Gassama in a Russia match, to test Roldan isn't a bad idea but he is more used to intensive atmospheres and 'big' matches in CONMEBOL anyway. Maybe FIFA do wait for the more crucial Russia-Mexico...

BTW about Roldán, before 2014 WC I thought he was a huge talent. I was disappointed after having watched his games. True that almost all mistakes were made by assistant referees, but I wasn't impressed by him as well. Therefore I hope this time it will be totally different! I wish the best.

I also wasn't impressed by Roldan at WC, but based on a few games I watched at 2016 Copa America I think he has improved. As an example, I was surprised by how calmly and brilliantly he solved the Jones-Valencia situation in USA vs Ecuador game, which led to 2 RCs.

On the other hand Caceres is a more authoritative referee (he sometimes reminds me Carlos Simon for his card showing procedure), but with a very good foul detection. I regularly check Arbitro International and he almost never has crucial mistakes, according to them.

I'm really looking forward to see how CONMEBOL referees will perform in Russia this year and the next one, after so much (deserved) criticism after 2016 Copa America

The question is, whether it is a 100% penalty, otherwise the VAR must not intervene. And I think, the attacker is jumping before the contact (and might fall anyway) - therefore my impression is, that the decision is still acceptable

Based on what we saw at U20 WC this penalty would have been whistled for sure, I think that Busacca informed the VAR officials to check carefully whether there is even the 1% for backing the referee. However, I think this was a very clear penalty if compared to many other situations assessed by VAR at U20 WC.

I can recall Busacca highlighting that Walter Lopez Castellanos situation from Uruguay v Italy game during the media debriefing and he said in such situations they want to improve as in the referee himself should go to the review and check... So why wasn't that done today?? Aren't Roldan, Ricci and Caceres instructed properly what is wanted from them??

I really don't like that, AR, still with the raised flag, is out from the game for a while, but what happens if he has to make further assessments before a possible goal? This can't work for a long time, what do you think Ray?

I would like to separate the very needed VAR programme from the things van Basten and co. propose.

On the VAR decision: It has always been clear that human mistakes are not abandoned by VARs. Sources of mistakes are rather brought to another, but also human level. However, as Philipp outlined, it looked like an early jump at first glance. Maybe Ricci simply chose the "wrong" angle to look at the incident. We cannot know it. Oh and by the way: Roldán could have seen that himself...I know noone cares with VARs anymore, but it should not remain unmentioned.

Nonetheless, I am opposed to condemn something which is correct, needed and useful in itself but simply wrongly applied. Ricci's decision was maybe the result of a lack of experience, training and practice. But this does not mean the entire VAR idea is bad.

Apart from that, I think Roldán was ok in the first half. However, I am not sure whether I should praise his calmness or criticize a lack of energy in his body language. Looks a bit lethargic at times, also due to the chewing gum in his mouth, maybe.

Pretty much all of those are utter bullshit. I think IFAB, and Niclas wrote football in general, is surely becoming way too focused on making a game fair that lives and is popular thanks to being unfair essentially. Where's the 'fun' for the media when they can't criticise the referee (I mean tell Hansson, Øvrebo that...). The next step is robot players or so. The decision of cheating should really be a moral / cultural one rather than some stupid facets of the LOTG. Football hardly needs to change either, it's popular for a reason. Quite honestly, how is IFAB really thaaaat relevant to football to have the authority to basically turn it into a joke. If Ellery, a great referee and actually a good and decent person, has signed off this I'm sorry he's gone totally mad, the changes already were (more than) enough.

Now in 40' it was even more evident that referee must wait for a possible goal before whistling an offside in case of promising attack / OGSO. Not nice to watch if you ask me. BTW extremely tight offside, correct call.

TERRIBLE! In the situation of the disallowed Russian goal it was clear that the goalkeeper didn't really react anymore. How does FIFA imagine that? AR stands still with his flag in the hand and waits until the situation is finished? How bad he has to feel during these seconds...

Italian commentators are not convinced as well with NO PENALTY decision. They think it was a clear penalty, but even in case of different decision, why not VAR intervention? Referee should have rewatched the incident for sure, he was quite far away, without making any signal / gesture. It is possible that he totally missed the incident. I must say Busacca can't be content with such management.

I'm watching from Canada and TSN analysts were frustrated saying "mistakes like this should not be made on the big stage." They also cited Howard Webb's frustration with the lack of management with the VAR system

I remember I was a bit surprised when I saw Oliver Drachta's beard in a friendly game, there was something weird and uncommon about him. But then doing some research I found out that there are many other cases, such as Stefan Johannesson (UEFA - Sweden ) or Sébastien Desiage in France. Even AR Child had at 2016 Euro. I guess trends change with time. Think of how many referees had moustache in the 90s and early 2000s: Garcia-Aranda, Batres, Bujsaim... now I can't find any! Anyway I don't see any problem with that, as long as it doesn't look unprofessional. I wonder if UEFA/FIFA have guidelines about that, though!

For me it's not a clear penalty. Yes there is a small contact, but the striker was really looking for the PK by eager to fall. In this situation the super slomo made it looks worse instead of in real speed. However I agree that in any case an OFR should have been recommended to the referee. Just for the reason to protect the image of the VAR. During the offside situations the referee handled excellent to wait some seconds to see if the outcome would result in a goal. This can only be done when de ball is very close to the penalty area or goal and in which we can expect a goal in close time (seconds). As we all know, we can't do nothing in case the whistle is blown before the goal has been scored. So better to wait a few seconds and then let the VAR to check the decision.I know this is a different approach to football, but we have to try it to know if it can be implemented. Otherwise I there is no other option to prevent a disallowed goal after a wrong offside call. And players must remember that they only stop play after the whistle of the referee. The way of the VAR must not only be adapted by the referees, but also by the players in order to get this project successful. There are many negative comments about the VAR. Perhaps these people can suggest some better solutions?

Interesting post from Rafał Rostkowski. If the play is restarted after the closest stoppage (free kick, corner kick, throw-in) after the incident, the referee can't change the decision regarding that incident.

Now, have a look at the time. 14:01 - foul, 14:20 - play is restarted after the free kick given in the middle of the field. Surely the VAR was not ready yet. Therefore, the reason for no change can be that the referee didn't stop the play in order to receive a message from VAR when he gave a free kick in the middle.

The russian forward had his right foot on the ground when the goalkeeper kicked him (with right knee). How can someone pretend that forward jumped before the contact ?

A very good referee should "feel" the foul even if he doesn't see perfectly the contact. If you played football or you saw a lot of football in your life you start to "feel" some things even without seeing a lot of re-plays. That's my opinion...

Haha ofcourse Petscho. Well if you were able to see - without any replay - that there was this slight contact with the goalkeepers knee, then your eyes are fenomenal! And if you decide to take crucial decisions - like penalty kicks - based on "feeling" then you're a great referee. Sorry mate, the way the striker felt was more like an acrobat showing a bad audition in Britisch Got Talent :-)

Since there is VAR, the arguments "if you were able to see, without any replay, that there was this slight contact..." are unreasonable. There is a VAR who has all possible angles. And if that's not a penalty for you, even after watching replays, it's really strange... I can't see any kind of simulation there.

I was wrong, the offside occurred before the shot on goal, it was a "normal" pass. So I would say AR had to see it.Check:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5r3lj1_pepe-canceled-goal-by-video-assistant-portugal-mexico-confederation-cup-18-06-2017-hd_sportAnd question is: how long earlier can go VAR while analyzing a goal?

I have to rewatch the disallowed goal, however, I think at least three or four Portuguese players were in an offside position. So, AR2 should be able to detect the punishable offside position by himself.

@DrMrI know that the offside position was not easy to detect (also from personal experience), however, in my opinion, the offside was not impossible to detect and AR2 can be blamed for missing it, even if it was not an easy one.

About Pitana: apart from VAR incidents, I think he was OK in a not so much challenging game. Very good foul detection, he could have issued one YC more (minute 89') but regarding disciplinary control he had this approach from the beginning. Definitely better than Roldán in terms of alertness: clear gestures, looking always for the best possible angle to judge incidents, movements. Expected level (8.4), now the interesting thing is to understand how much importance Busacca and committee will give to the missed offside. Of course the performance must be analyzed without VAR reviews. I would appoint Pitana's crew again.

I think FIFA should keep him directly for the (semi-)final. Good performance, his natural authority seems to make things very easy. I don't remember any FIFA game he had which was not fully controlled.

Minute 16' in CMR - CHI: Skomina disallowed a goal scored by Cameroon for a previous foul by attacker. I think supportable decision, so OK that VAR didn't intervene. But at the same time one can say it was a soft call.

Indeed, soft but acceptable call by Skomina. No need to intervene for VAR, however, I think VAR had not even a chance to intervene as Skomina immediately stopped the play (before the goal was scored). Nice to see that he is still evaluating on his own and that he is not just waiting for VAR to decide.

On the pitch, without watching a video replay, every AR would allow that goal. Even on the replay I'm not 100% sure, if I were VAR I would allow goal or at least tell referee to watch himself and decide. Do you know if VARs have and use 3D technology maybe? It would explain why Skomina did not watch the incident IMO.

I agree, but to me this is not clear, that is why I think Skomina could watch it :). But just while I am writing they showed on tv goal situation with lines VAR use (I guess) and it realy is an offside. Great decission by VARs :).

https://s16.postimg.org/nlqvx1505/image.jpgTight offside, but offside. I think almost impossible to detect for all the assistant referees, so VAR will always intervene in such situations, even extremely tight offsides. But... are that evident mistakes?

Mmm... an offside should always be a black/white decision: even after some replays, one should be able to decide whether it is offside or not. It's not something that can be interpreted. Then, I think that, yes, VAR will always intervene in such cases. Otherwise, how would you decide which is a tight offside and which not?

As someone earlier said, they probably have more angles than we see on TV, maybe they even use 3D tech but it is not shown on TV.Also, it is now clear that FIFA instructed ARs that if they are not sure, they let the game go, and after efect (goal, penalty kick, foul, ...) they raise their flag if they think it was an offside. IMO not the happiest solution, second, even minutes can pass between potential offside and efect... Praprotnik obviously thought it was an offside, they asked for VARs help and VAR decided. But, I don't think he should raise his flag, they have communication...

It is also possible that Praprotnik decided to "freeze" the previous situation, waiting directly for a possible goal before raising the flag, as Roldán did twice in this game yesterday.Indeed, in case of offside flag by Praprotnik after the first pass, he would have been unable to make to subsequent assessment, standing still with the raised flag. One thing is sure: big confusion and chaos in referees and assistant referees mind, it is difficult to change and re-adapt the easy things made in years and years of officiating.

@VictorNo, I dont think so, on that level ARs dont make such mistakes. And after three matches it is obvious that referees an ARs must wait until goal is scored or some other efect has happened and then decide. Which is obvious, after goal was scored, Praprotnik raised his flag as thought that first pass was offside.

To be honest, I really don't like the VAR-system. For sure, there won't be any match-deciding mistakes, that's a big advantage. But what about referees, who gets confused or even angry if he is corrected by VAR in a few situations in a match? And what about ARs, who are afraid of flagging offside when they make a significant mistake? This is only human that they get nervous and distracted. And last but not least, what about all the emotions from players and spectators, who are celebrating a goal and one minute later the goal is disallowed? This isn't the football I enjoyed so much in the last years. But I have to adapt myself to this new conditions.

It will be very interesting to see whether:a) many VAR interventions correcting the referee and the ARs will have an impact on further appointments for the refereeing team on the pitch.b) a wrong VAR intervention or a missed intervention will have an impact on further appointments for the VAR (e.g. Ricci yesterday or Team Mazic if Ristic's decision would be wrong (of course very unlikely in case of offside decisions) or the refereeing team on the pitch.

Of course we cannot blame AR2 for keeping the flag down (impossible to detect if you're name is not Sascha Thielert 😉); but maybe AR1's error has an influence on Busacca's next appointments. Overall, solid performance by Skomina.

Chefren, you see that Praprotnik will flag for offside when Sanchez get the ball. He make a small stop. Maybe Skomina or Mazic said to Praprotnik "don't flag, the VAR will look when the game is death". https://youtu.be/TtyP6-taCB8 the moment start at 1.20

Ok it is clear we, and everybody else must change our view on assesing referee's performance now when VARs are introduced.We should not ask questions like: What if there was no VAR? .... We must not think that way and if some decision was corrected by VAR it should not be counted as referee's mistake specialy if we have offside decisions thight as two Slovenian assistants had. Also, imagine what is happening in Skomina's head after two decisions corrected by VAR? That is why, we should forget thinking: what if there was no VAR.

They drew the line at the Cameroon defender's foot. We cannot know whether his waist was closer to the goalline, though (it seems so, I call the difference in the positions X).

The Chilean attacker, however, is marginally offside. Maybe 10cm. As he cannot score a goal with his upper arm and hands, actually only a part of his left chest and leg make him offside. Now what if we weigh up the maybe 10cm offside with the Cameroon defender's waist position? Maybe 10cm - X makes the whole thing level or even onside.

I appreciate VARs in general, but for such offside cases it is slightly dubious. Originally all was planned to help the referee for incidents in his back. Now we are at a point where we punish "armchair offsides" (how we called it once) - maybe resulting from 5cm offside positions - after 2 minutes of celebrations, joy and hopes of a team.

In German TV, they raised the question, why this is considered as a clear situation. They expected the VAR not to intervene. But they asked someone from IFAB, who told them, that offside situations are always considered as clear.

I completely agree with Niclas. When it comes to such tight differences in position it's hardly possible for the VAR to move the line with 100% accuracy to the correct position. And it gets even more difficult when the body part involved doesn't touch the ground, but is half a meter 'in the air'. Check the image of Fudbaler, what if it's the butt of the player in the middle?https://postimg.org/image/mnlynkm3n/

Then I seriously hope that THIS was not the only basis the VARs made their decision on... one prerequisite for stadiums with VARs FIFA should IMO think of are flexible cameras moving at the entire sideline, being always 100% on line with the second last defender. Otherwise it is going to be a lottery.

The position of the camera is not a problem Niclas. If you know a little bit of Geometry, you will know that with a still image and a line as a reference (in this case the midfield), you can make a totally precise line of offside with simple programs like AutoCAD for example . The problem may be something you mentioned above, which part of the body will be used as a reference.

Joaquin, you're right about Geometry but can you really evaluate if the attacker's shoulder is in front or behind this line? If you can, you've my full respect because I cannot... It is easy to evaluate his feets regarding an offside position but according to my opinion it is nearly impossible to evaluate his upper body for 100%.

As you can see in my last sentence, I agree with that. What part of the body is being used as a reference? But there are technologies today that could analyze offside with reference to upper parts of the body. But FIFA should explain what technology they are using, just know it is the same company responsible for hawkeye, but they did not explain how it works.

Don't worry, Joaquin. We are creating such lines with programmes like photoshop and others for years (and so does Offside Explained for example). The problem is, as Gitzlo underlined, about body parts which are 1m above the turf. You can only solve that if there is a camera from exactly the 2nd last defender height.

I still keep the hope of a very good appointment, but I have the feeling he will stay with only one game as it happened at WC. At any rate, 9 referees for "only" 16 matches are a questionable choice. 7 or 8 trios would have been a better solution.

The evaluation should be focused on control, consistency (yellow cards), tactical approach and soft skills now.

The big point referees have to work on is psychological resistance when an important decision needs to be reviewed or/and changed. Skomina got very nervous after the Chile's disallowed goal. It should be improved. (By the way, I don't like his decision to disallow Cameroon's goal due to alleged foul. Way too soft and almost never whistled.)

The freezed frames made and shown by FIFA are real proofs that VAR made correct decisions regarding offsides:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCooS1dXYAAqmtZ.jpg:largehttp://img.fifa.com/mm/photo/footballtechnologyinnovation/videoassistantref/02/89/62/37/2896237_full-lnd.jpg

I guess that regarding offsides they have so good tools to be 100% sure and indeed in a very tight situations the correct decision were made by VAR.

Sorry but I have to ask: Why is the first screenshot a proof? Does it tell where the upper body is? :) I also hope that they have good enough tools to be 100% sure. But then I would expect FIFA shows the best possible video angle on TV.

Small remark on yesterday`s game. I wonder what if there were no VARs and no additional angles with which we could asses this two offside incidents, would we call that as a mistake by assistants?I think rather not, so it`s quite interesting how much has evaluation of referee performance changed with these VARs.All in all good performance, no cards only for me a small mistake dissalowed goal for Cameroon althought I wouldn`t call it a clear mistake.

I would have accepted both decisions regarding the offside goals. So yes, VAR changes everything there. Surely assistant referees can't make such difficult evaluations on the pitch. The fact that it happened twice in a game made it more sonorous, but I think we would have easily backed them. Assistant referees shouldn't feel under pressure in such circumstances. The only point for discussion is indeed the disallowed goal by Skomina in first half.

Theoretically one could blame AR2 for the 45' offside case as he was inappropriately positioned. But even accurately in line with the 2nd last defender, I could imagine most ARs would leave the flag down.

So the important news is that Ricci was backed regarding the penalty in RUS - NZL. But it is also possible that for some reasons Roldán was the only responsible of the poor management, let's wait for the next appearance of the Colombian...

I agree. But still with the camera angles that we had in Champions league, Europa league etc. I believe that large part of spectators/media would accept this as correct decison/s.And I wonder if referees or/and assistant referees would depend more and more on this VARs or will they be still confident enough to still make thought decisions by themselves.

I think given the dynamic, intensity and the potentially injuryy-causing character of the tackle (leg vs calf is always dangerous), I would prefer a yellow card. If not for DOGSO, then for reckless tackle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLZnXar9E4kHere the video including the incident before the second AUS goal.In my opinion not a punishable handball, absolutely OK to allow the goal.If one wants to be very strict, could call this handball, but in any case never a mistake playing on...

The German goalkeeper wasted around 25-30 seconds, Geiger whistles twice to order the goal kick to be taken more quickly... and in the end, he nonetheless finishes the additional time during the goal kick execution without further enlargement. If referees enlarged the time added more strictly as a reaction to such subtle time-wasting, the IFAB would not have to think about ideas like reducing the game-time to 60 minutes..

I watched only the last minutes of the game and I noticed that: it is a nosense. You warn the keeper about time wasting but then you whistle the end just a few seconds later? Couldn't find a logic there.However, additional time is a big issue. Since it is at referee's discretion, one can't question but also here in Italy we had many controversial situations in serie A, goals were scored after the end of added time, in other occasions referees whistled without considering time wastings and so on...BTW it seems as Geiger had a good game including the penalty call?

I do not understand Busacca. With his pathological distrust against Gassama - why not Al Mirdasi for MEX-NZL - he gets in trouble. If we now predict KAM-AUS Mazic, GER-CHI Faghani,NZL-POR Al Mirdasi who gets MEX-RUS? Pitana had Mexiko before, RolDan the Russian Opener. So what? Skomina? Good bye to the neutral referee from other continent?

Al Mirdasi could maybe get MEX-RUS. Then Geiger would be the only option for NZL-POR by the usual "rules"But at the last ConfedCup Aguilar had Nigeria twice in the group stage, so this is also possible and provides more options.

In my humble view our predictions posted 2 weeks before the competitions made much more sense than Mr Busacca's appointments, that are - this should not be forgotten - however also driven by political aspects such as "Will the national association X accept referee Y?"... that's how FIFA works for years.